For me as a swede the monarchy is part of our history and for me that is importand
i also think the royal family is ambasedors for sweden
just see how victorias role in australia was when she was there in march

Yes Josephine, i agree, i started this thread some time ago and have since changed my mind about royalty, i noew think that royalty is important. Victoria confirmed my belief when she visited us here in Australia. I just dont agree with foreign monarchies governing other countries like Australia, thats all.

I just dont agree with foreign monarchies governing other countries like Australia.

The Queen doesn't govern Australia. Her powers are vested in the Governor-General and the State Governors. Like her, they act on the advice of the elected government of the day.

Their importance in the Constitutions (Federal and State) is that the G-G and Governors have the "reserve powers" of the Crown. This means that no politician can ever achieve absolute power; it is the safeguard.

For better or worse the G-G in 1975 exercised this power to dismiss the elected government of the day as the only way (as he saw it) of resolving a political impasse. At the subsequent federal election the former government was overwhelmingly defeated. In effect, the G-G forced an election so that the popular will of the electorate could be expressed.

Apparently Buckingham Palace was aghast (the Queen had not been consulted by the G-G), but the point is that the G-G, by using the reserve powers of the Crown, was able to dismiss a government and resolve a political crisis.

The republic referendum in 1999 failed because there was no agreement on 1) how to elect or appoint a proposed president; and 2) what to do with the reserve powers. I suppose many people thought that to give a hack former politician who became president such sweeping (emergency) powers was not such a good idea.

As a general rule the G-G and State Governors do not have political backgrounds (or ambitions) and remain above the political fray.

The third reason why the referendum failed (not a single state of Australia voted in favour of the republican proposal) is because we have a stable political system and Australians do not like major change, especially when there is no pressing need, and even more so when the alternative has not been spelled out.

The Commonwealth of Australia Constitution defines the Federal Parliament as consisting of the Queen [then Queen Victoria], a Senate, and a House of Representatives. So even though the reigning monarch does not play a role in Australia's affairs, the G-G and Governors, as representative of the Sovereign, have a vital constitutional role to play.
.

I learn a lot with this thread! i didnīt know that Autralia and canada have monarchies!

Well, Iīm from a American country, Argentina, and we are far from royals (and all the wold). I think most of people in my country donīt know the name of one royal and we see them as a show.I discover 1 year ago that spain still have a mornachy! And netherlands royalty is faumous since Maxima married Willem.
Almost 200 years ago that we are independient .
Royalty of Spain made disasters with our native people when they discover America (1492), they murder, took in ambitius people who only want money, power and gold , and tried to change our religion with bad ideas . They only think in them and the best for Spain and left us to our destinity. Well after 300 of reing all the countries in America got independient.(araund 1810)

For me monarchy is irrelevant, they are famous people but I think that they arenīt soo important. And remember Iīm from a country that is a republic, so I have a diferent history and different thouhts. Maybe a lot of people in Arg. think that is imposible that some countries still have a monarchy and these live in palace and have a lot of money, but we have politics that rob a lot of money and now we are a poor contry (50% of our poblation is poor) so I think that is a cultural difference.

As a Canadian, I would say that most people I know are indifferent about the Monarchy.

Yes, although the monarchy costs us financially (spendings of Governer General Adrienne Clarkson), most seem to forget the War of 1812. Without British help, Canada could have very well been taken over by the US and today, we wouldn't be Canadians but Americans. However, theres the two World Wars where we were obligated to fight for Britain.

In light of recent British royal events, I don't think many Canadians would be too happy in having 'Queen'/'Princess Consort' Camilla as part of the monarchy. Prince Charles himself isn't even very popular in Canada. Polls suggest QEII is the most favourite member of the royal family taking up 28% of the votes, William with 22%. Charles with only 9%. The most interesting stat is that 20% of Canadians dont like any of members of the royal family.

Nevertheless, It'll be interesting to see how the commonwealth reacts to 'King' Charles and 'Queen' Camilla.

(Personally, I would rather see Canada as a republic after the reign of QEII.)

i can understand that cuntries like canada and australia can feel that the monarchy do not fit in due to that thier royal family do not live in thier country iand i guess do not promote thir imaage and produkts like the royal families of sweden denmark and norway and many other royal family
if the royal family would move to canada or australia and promote that country would that be a difference?

i can understand that cuntries like canada and australia can feel that the monarchy do not fit in due to that thier royal family do not live in thier country iand i guess do not promote thir imaage and produkts like the royal families of sweden denmark and norway and many other royal family
if the royal family would move to canada or australia and promote that country would that be a difference?

I think Canadians are so use to their current monarchy being pretty much non-existent that another monarchy would be hard to implement. (Unless you make up the monarchy using famous hockey players ).

I think that if the queen were to visit some of the commonwealth countries more often, it wouldn't hurt.

I learn a lot with this thread! i didnīt know that Autralia and canada have monarchies!

Well, Iīm from a American country, Argentina, and we are far from royals (and all the wold). I think most of people in my country donīt know the name of one royal and we see them as a show.I discover 1 year ago that spain still have a mornachy! And netherlands royalty is faumous since Maxima married Willem.
Almost 200 years ago that we are independient .
Royalty of Spain made disasters with our native people when they discover America (1492), they murder, took in ambitius people who only want money, power and gold , and tried to change our religion with bad ideas . They only think in them and the best for Spain and left us to our destinity. Well after 300 of reing all the countries in America got independient.(araund 1810)

For me monarchy is irrelevant, they are famous people but I think that they arenīt soo important. And remember Iīm from a country that is a republic, so I have a diferent history and different thouhts. Maybe a lot of people in Arg. think that is imposible that some countries still have a monarchy and these live in palace and have a lot of money, but we have politics that rob a lot of money and now we are a poor contry (50% of our poblation is poor) so I think that is a cultural difference.

Sorry for my bad english:o

I think you've made a great point Piewi. I completely understand where you're coming from. Though I am Canadian, my background is Pakistani. I have, for the past 6-7 months been learning the history of the region of my origin and I can tell you that what you've attributed to Spain isn't much different from what the British did in the Indian subcontinent or what other imperial European powers did elsewhere in Asia, Africa, South America and even to the native populations of North America. It was exploitation and suppression under the veil of imperialism and "civilization".
Many European countries have been guilty of the same thing. As a result of which the damage suffered by the colonized populations has been irreversible and the effects of which can be seen even today.
So im sure some people will excuse me for not have a special attachment to the Queen. That is not to say ofcourse that I dislike her or any other European monarch. They're not responsible for what their ancestors did.
Like I said, my point-of-view is different from what a European's might be, or perhaps even that of a Canadian of European origin.
But ofcourse I dont expect the rest of Canada to share my opinion. Many of them do though, since this is a country of immigrants and South Asians are increasingly the fastest growing segment of the immigrant population here. Who knows, a time may come when Queen Elizabeth will no longer be Queen of Canada. Right now though, Canadians are indifferent about the issue. It is way down the bottom of our priority list.

Thank you Humera. Im glad that you understand me so well.
As you said , not only in America royals did desasters, but of course monarchs of our times are not guilty of things that they ancestors did. Well, my history teacher told me (and my classmates) that English royals made a different thing with native people in northAmerica, they took off of their lands, but Spanish people made indians hard work and that was really bad īcause they didnīt know how to do that and a lot them died

its six eggs in one hand and half a dozen in the other, royal families bring in a lot of money from people traveling to see different events. but on the other hand they fall short of setting a good example of how families should act

Hello, I would like to hear your opinions about the sense and utility of a monarchy.What do you think monarchs should do/be/represent: national symbols, moral models, activists for good causes, tourist attractions, political figures, sources of entertainment, etc...?What monarch(s) in your opinion represent best the ideal of monarchy?Are monarchies relevant to a modern world?

Hello, I would like to hear your opinions about the sense and utility of a monarchy.What do you think monarchs should do/be/represent: national symbols, moral models, activists for good causes, tourist attractions, political figures, sources of entertainment, etc...?What monarch(s) in your opinion represent best the ideal of monarchy?Are monarchies relevant to a modern world?

Iīm against monachy, so for me they arenīt relevant, i mean they donīt lead their countries or have a politicy just are famous or made their country famous (as Monaco).
They represent nacional symbols and their countries ( some of them, for example last year i discovered that monarchies exist, i only knew British royals-Diana- and Caroline of Monaco. And i was shocked to knew that Spain still have a monarchy! They were/are a famous country, how i didnīt know that they had royals? )
They also are huge sources of entertaiment.
For me royals have to help poor people on their countries(and others), do carithy, be in hospitals , create new schools...They have to use the love and money that they get in relevant things.

The idea of monarchy in America, in my opinion is absolutely frightening. I mean, they're alright for a novelty and everything, but I believe that monarchy breeds elitism and arrogance and too much centralized power, which, in turn, leads to abuse of power. That's why I'm so proud to be an American, and that's why, every time some one on this forum suggests we have a king or monarch, I gag.

__________________The English take the breeding of their horses and dogs more seriously than they do their children-HRH Princess Michael of Kent

In times of crisis, the monarchy can be seen as a bonding national force that is above politics, example: King George VI and the British royals during WWII. But today, they are mostly for entertainment, tradition, and pomp. However there are those who argue that the money it costs a country to keep a monarchy is not as wasteful as it may seem. Countries w/o a royal family must still hold state galas, entertain politicians, and live and dress similarly to what royals do. The cost of doing this is about same, if not more, than what a royal family would cost. However, in these countries, the money spent is spread out throughout various gov't agencies so it doesn't LOOK like as much as what a monarchy would cost. Personally, I have not researched/kept track of spending, but this is another way of looking at things.

__________________
Real princesses always wear sleeves so why do we all go for strapless?

Im not a monarchist. But from the various opinions I've heard on this subject, monarchies today can also do a lot of good. Not having a King or Queen isnt reason enough to be proud. Im sure there are many people on this board who live in monarchies and are just as proud of their country and their monarch.

What's the point of this post?!?! I read the news shown in chats around, similar to the Royal Forums, and if I recall recently this question, but phrased in a different way, caused quite a stir in another Forum to a point the Adms, Netty and Toni, had enough with the personal attacks, mainly from pro-republicans, and ended closing the thread.

So, are you bringing that war zone over here, to the quite waters of Les Tribunes Royales/Royal Forums?

In times of crisis, the monarchy can be seen as a bonding national force that is above politics, example: King George VI and the British royals during WWII. But today, they are mostly for entertainment, tradition, and pomp. However there are those who argue that the money it costs a country to keep a monarchy is not as wasteful as it may seem. Countries w/o a royal family must still hold state galas, entertain politicians, and live and dress similarly to what royals do. The cost of doing this is about same, if not more, than what a royal family would cost. However, in these countries, the money spent is spread out throughout various gov't agencies so it doesn't LOOK like as much as what a monarchy would cost. Personally, I have not researched/kept track of spending, but this is another way of looking at things.

Hi Empress,

I agree with what you have written, however, comparatively monarchies do tend to cost more than republics of similar size -- but not always. It depends on the type of republic, who's running it, etc. However, if the citizens feel that they are getting value for money,then that's all that matters.

Personally, I'm not always a monarchist. Like everything It depends on the situation. Every country is different, and has its own needs, etc. I'm totally against dictatorships posing as monarchies (Saudi, Jordan, etc.). That being said, a crown, can however, be a unifying force in divisive, multi-ethnic countries and confederate countries (e.g. Belgium, Malaysia, etc.). What's more, in my opinion, rather than becoming anachronisms in the European (and some non-European) countries in which they exist, in my opinion I think they will become even more important institutions. More specifically, with increased regional and international integration, the erosion of national borders, the spread of a global (ie American) consumer culture, and the compression of space and time, monarchies will provide their citizenry with a sense of national identity, continuity, and traditon -- a pillar of stability if you will, in a fast changing, hyper, and often politically and economically tumultuous world.

What's the point of this post?!?! I read the news shown in chats around, similar to the Royal Forums, and if I recall recently this question, but phrased in a different way, caused quite a stir in another Forum to a point the Adms, Netty and Toni, had enough with the personal attacks, mainly from pro-republicans, and ended closing the thread.

So, are you bringing that war zone over here, to the quite waters of Les Tribunes Royales/Royal Forums?

I followed a bit the discussion on this other board...and I really hope, we can avoid such kind of discussion. We had a similar discussion before...and then people behaved. So I want to ask you in advance to do the same again. Please donīt get too much into politics, and please accept other opinions.